↓ Skip to main content

Validity of self-reported weight and height: a cross-sectional study among Malaysian adolescents

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validity of self-reported weight and height: a cross-sectional study among Malaysian adolescents
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0362-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. C. Kee, K. H. Lim, M. G. Sumarni, C. H. Teh, Y. Y. Chan, M. I. Nuur Hafizah, Y. K. Cheah, E. O. Tee, Y. Ahmad Faudzi, M. Amal Nasir

Abstract

Self-reported weight and height are commonly used in lieu of direct measurements of weight and height in large epidemiological surveys due to inevitable constraints such as budget and human resource. However, the validity of self-reported weight and height, particularly among adolescents, needs to be verified as misreporting could lead to misclassification of body mass index and therefore overestimation or underestimation of the burden of BMI-related diseases. The objective of this study was to determine the validity of self-reported weight and height among Malaysian secondary school children. Both self-reported and directly measured weight and height of a subgroup of 663 apparently healthy schoolchildren from the Malaysian Adolescent Health Risk Behaviour (MyAHRB) survey 2013/2014 were analysed. Respondents were required to report their current body weight and height via a self-administrative questionnaire before they were measured by investigators. The validity of self-reported against directly measured weight and height was examined using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), the Bland-Altman plot and weighted Kappa statistics. There was very good intraclass correlation between self-reported and directly measured weight [r = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93, 0.97] and height (r = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.90, 0.96). In addition the Bland-Altman plots indicated that the mean difference between self-reported and direct measurement was relatively small. The mean difference (self-reported minus direct measurements) was, for boys: weight, -2.1 kg; height, -1.6 cm; BMI, -0.44 kg/m(2) and girls: weight, -1.2 kg; height, -0.9 cm; BMI, -0.3 kg/m(2). However, 95% limits of agreement were wide which indicated substantial discrepancies between self-reported and direct measurements method at the individual level. Nonetheless, the weighted Kappa statistics demonstrated a substantial agreement between BMI status categorised based on self-reported weight and height and the direct measurements (kappa = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.67, 0.84). Our results show that the self-reported weight and height were consistent with direct measurements and therefore can be used in assessing the nutritional status of Malaysian school children from the age of 13 to 17 years old in epidemiological studies and for surveillance purposes when direct measurements are not feasible, but not for assessing nutritional status at the individual level.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 6 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 12 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 21%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Sports and Recreations 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 6 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2017.
All research outputs
#9,971,644
of 11,251,144 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#879
of 957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,243
of 267,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#29
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,251,144 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 957 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,745 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.